There are some people out
there who would love to see the Bible discredited. For some reason, they don’t want the Bible to be true. Perhaps it’s because the Bible points out things
in our lives that are wrong, and it exposes our weaknesses and sin. But no one discredits a doctor if the doctor
finds something wrong with him.
Actually, the patient would thank the good doctor for telling him the
truth about his condition, so that it can
be dealt with. It should be the same
with Scripture. We should be thankful to
God for His Word, which not only points to our many shortcomings, but it also gives
us a way out of our sin problem. But
some say that they can’t trust the Bible because there are contradictions in it. But is this really true?
This will be the first in a
series of articles addressing what some consider to be contradictions in the
Word of God. The Christian Bible is a
large and multi-faceted book that was written by about forty different authors
from different cultures over a period of about 1600 years. It touches on many topics, yet it has an
amazing consistency when studied. We
believe it is truly “God-breathed” (i.e., inspired by God), and it is extremely
relevant to us today. We also consider
it to be the ultimate guide for the church (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
But what about these seeming
contradictions within its pages. Can
they be explained? We will now begin
looking at these “contradictions” and attempt to clarify some of them,
beginning with some that pertain to God’s nature and character.
SEEMING
CONTRADICTION #1
Many people feel that there
is a built-in contradiction between the existence of a merciful, all-powerful
and all-knowing God, and the suffering found in this world. If God really is aware of the horrible
suffering in the world (especially among the innocent), then why doesn’t He do
something about it? Is He too weak to
remedy the problem? If so, then He must
not be all-powerful, as the Bible portrays Him.
But if God really is all-powerful and He is also aware of all the evil
and suffering here on earth, then why
would He not wipe out all evil? Does He
enjoy seeing people suffering? Of course
not.
But the question is, do we REALLY
want God to wipe out all evil and its causes?
Remember, each and every one of us
have caused suffering of one kind or another for someone else in our lifetime,
in some way. So, according to this logic
(since we have been a cause of evil), God would have to destroy each and every one of us in order to
“fix” this problem. But rest assured, He
has a better way. Earthly suffering may
not be pleasant, but it is temporary. God is certainly aware of those who suffer,
but He is not uncaring or unconcerned about it.
In fact, He is always working “behind the scenes,” doing things we
cannot see, and touching the hearts of people we may not even know. For those who trust Him, He is able to make all things work together for good (Romans
8:28), even “senseless suffering.”
This is certainly a tough
topic, especially for the ones going through the actual suffering. We can sympathize with these people. It’s not a sin to humbly ask, “Why,
God?” But those who angrily shake their
fist at God, demanding an answer, will be silenced and shamed when He reveals the
work He was secretly doing all along. Then
with extreme embarrassment, they will whimper, “Oh, I didn’t know that…” We need to always be careful how we approach
the Living God.
It is much like Job, who
questioned God’s fairness about his suffering and was greatly humbled (Job
chapters 38-41). Here is the answer to man’s suffering on
earth. God is sovereign AND
merciful. He will cause things to happen
in each life according to HIS will. But
it will be fair and in everybody’s best
interest. So, let’s trust Him and let
Him do His work. For those who trust
Him, it will end well. That’s a promise
(Job
13:15; 42:10-17; Psalm 9:10; Matthew 25:21; John 11:25; Romans 8:28).
See this link:
SEEMING
CONTRADICTION #2
Scripture tells us that God
is immutable, i.e., He is unchangeble (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6;
James 1:17). But, on the other
hand, there are verses that say that God repented, or changed His mind (e.g., Genesis
6:6; 1 Samuel 15:35; Jonah 3:10).
Does this mean that God lied, or that He’s wishy-washy? Did He contradict Himself? Can we, or can we not, trust what He says?
We can indeed. When Genesis 6:6 says that “It
repented the Lord that He had made man” (KJV), it simply means that He
was sorry, or regretted it. Does this
mean that God made a mistake, or that
He didn’t know what would happen? Not at
all. If God ever changes His mind, it is
never because of “new” information. God
never says, “Wow! I didn’t see that coming!” No, His immutability is tied into His
sovereignty and His all-knowing nature. But
the thing is, God shares in our
day-to-day victories and failures. While
He does indeed know everything before it happens, He is never sitting there,
bored, saying, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I knew that was going to happen; big
deal…” No, He is interested and involved
in our lives, and He is always wanting us to make the right choices. But mankind (as a whole) had committed itself
to sin (Genesis 6:5). That’s why
He was grieved about creating man. God
already knew it would happen, but AT THIS POINT IN TIME, He was still moved
with regret concerning that situation.
The situation changed, but there was no change in God’s character. The same thing happened in 1
Samuel 15:35, where God regretted that He made Saul
king over Israel.
Concerning Jonah
3:10, God changed His mind about destroying Nineveh. But the destruction of Nineveh was conditional, i.e., it depended on
Nineveh’s continued disobedience. But they repented. God set forth the conditions and He has not
wavered or deviated one bit from His original plan, i.e., blessings for
obedience, and punishment for disobedience.
Again, the situation had changed, but God has not changed in essence or
character. In fact, it is His consistent
character that requires him to treat
the righteous differently from the wicked, as this very informative article
points out:
So, no, God does not change.
SEEMING
CONTRADICTION #3
Does God remember sin? Jeremiah 31:34 tells us that God
says, concerning the sins of His people, “… and their sin I will remember no more.” In Isaiah 43:25 He says, “I,
even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I
will not remember your sins.”
But Exodus 34:7 says that
God “visit[s]
the iniquity of the fathers on the children… to the third and fourth
generations.” In other words, here
He seems to remember their sins (or
their fathers’ sins).
Why does there seem to be a
contradiction here? Does God remember
your sins or not? First of all, God is
omniscient, or all-knowing. He does not literally forget anything. When it says that He won’t “remember” one’s
sins, it means He won’t remember them
against the person, i.e., He won’t hold him accountable for his sins. That person is forgiven… but ONLY if the
person is repentant. If you don’t want
God to remember your sins against you, then you, too, must repent and trust in
the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Second, why would God punish
the children and grandchildren, etc., for the sins of the parents? That doesn’t seem fair!
The point here is that sin
always has repercussions. The sin of the
parents can certainly affect the lives of the children, especially in those
cultures long ago when families were much closer and social ties were much
stronger than in today’s society. In
those days, it was much more likely that the customs, habits, and treasured
traditions (whether good or bad) would be embraced by the children. Out of family pride, the kids would be inclined
to act just as their ancestors did. If
there were sinful patterns, they would likely be passed down.
But it’s not like the
children had no choice, or that they’d be directly responsible for sins they didn’t commit. No, in each generation, the choice is there
to either allow the cycle to be
repeated, or not. They always had the
option to confess their sins and the sins of their fathers (Leviticus
26:40-42). But ultimately, each individual is responsible for his own
sin (Deuteronomy
24:16; Ezekiel 18:20). And God
will only “remember” your sin that you refuse to confess.
So, in conclusion, these are
not contradictions at all. Scripture has
a perfect balance. We can be confident
that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and that we can trust it.
We will continue with these
seeming contradictions in upcoming articles from time to time. Stay tuned and feel free to comment.
Rusty Russell,
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does contradict itself. That's why you need Catholic Tradition....
Sly Anonymous Catholic Panther
Sly,
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any true Catholic who believes that the Bible contradicts itself. You might want to double-check your status with the Catholic Church.
Hi Russell,
ReplyDeleteWould you mind if I displayed your two articles refuting specific "Bible contradictions" on my blog? I promise that I'll provide a link directly to your blog...
Thanks!
Hello Jessie,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay. I've been quite busy!
But yes, feel free to share any of my articles. I not only don't mind, but I would appreciate it!
God bless!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Russell,
ReplyDeleteTaken in their plain and natural sense, the writings that constitute the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain a number of errors—contradictions, failed prophecies, anachronisms, and so forth. Since Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians alike claim that their scriptures are inerrant, they must perforce work out a plethora of ad hoc hypotheses to explain these errors away. On such compendium of this brand of apologetics is the weighty tome of Drs. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. These top-of-the-line Christian apologists launch their book with a roar, arrogating the intellectual high ground to themselves. For instance, they say, “The Bible has withstood the criticisms of the greatest skeptics, agnostics, and atheists down through the centuries, and it is able to withstand the feeble efforts of unbelieving critics today.” (p. 9) “The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations of error in the Bible are based on some error of their own.” (p. 15) Strong words.
Admittedly, clever apologists like these can always come up with explanations to explain away the plain obvious sense of the Bible, just like a clever attorney in a court of law. They have an explanation for every error in the Bible—but they sure have a lot of explaining to do. Their damage-control conjectures are often clever, but usually contrived, and rarely convincing, having a baroque complexity that would drive Rube Goldberg mad with envy. To see what I mean, let us examine Geisler & Howe’s explanation for the conflicting genealogies of Jesus.
The two genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus’ purported descent from David via Joseph. According to Matthew 1:15–16, however, Joseph the foster father of the virgin-born Jesus was the son of Jacob: “… and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” According to Luke 3:23, on the other hand, Joseph’s father was Heli, not Jacob: “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph …” Geisler & Howe (pp. 385–386) explain this contradiction by claiming that Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, whereas Luke traces his genealogy through Mary. They interpret Luke to be saying that Jesus was “supposedly” the son of Joseph, but really the “son” of Heli, who must have been Mary’s father. If that is what God meant, then why didn’t he say that?
In dealing with this sort of Fundamentalist damage control, the proper approach is the Outsider Test for Faith of John Loftus, which can be summarized as follows. The scriptures of other religions, like the Qur’an of the Muslims and the Book of Mormon of the Latter-Day Saints, contain abundant errors of their own, and the intelligent and learned theologians of these alternative faiths likewise have their ingenious and implausible damage-control explanations. Therefore, the wise course of action to take when an apologist attempts to explain away an error in the Bible is to ask yourself three questions. First, is the damage-control theory in question simple and plausible, or convoluted and implausible? Second, is there any independent evidence for the theory, or is it just a conjecture? Third and last, would you find this theory the least bit plausible if the error to be explained away were found in the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible?
ReplyDeleteThe Outsider Test for Faith forbids the double standard of which Fundamentalist Christians are so often guilty. To refute Islam, they exploit the contradictions of the Qur’an as zealously as any rationalist trying to refute the Bible. To defend their faith, Muslims have explained away those contradictions as cleverly as any Christian trying to defend the Bible. Although the explanations of the Muslim apologists may not impress many outsiders, they are quite good enough to convince intelligent and learned Muslims who want to believe. This sort of damage control can be found in the extensive comments in the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur’an, and in many websites devoted to Islamic apologetics. One and a half billion people continue to embrace Islam despite all the errors in the Qur’an, of which the following are only a sample.
The Qur’an claims in some passages (Qur’ān 14.15–17; 38.57–59; 69.35–37) that the damned will eat nothing but “filth,” and in others (Qur’ān 37.62–67; 44.43–46; 56.51-56; 73.12–13; 88.6–7) that they will eat nothing but “thorn-fruit.” But perhaps the flesh of the infernal thorn-fruit consists of filth. This conjecture is comparable to the way Fundamentalists deal with the biblical contradiction regarding the death of the traitor Judas Iscariot: Matthew 27:3–10 says he hanged himself, Acts 1:16–20 says he fell and burst open spilling his entrails, and Fundamentalists reply that Judas hanged himself but the rope snapped (Geisler & Howe 1992, p. 361).
The Qur’an disagrees with itself regarding what Allah created first: the heavens or the earth. In one passage, we read that Allah first created the vault of heaven with day and night before proceeding to prepare the earth with its oceans, pastures, and mountains for humans and their cattle (Qur’ān 79.27–33). Elsewhere, we read that Allah prepared the earth before proceeding to create the seven heavens (Qur’ān 2.29). Muslims could harmonize these passages by assuming that Allah created first the firmament above, then the earth below, and finally the seven heavens above the firmament.
In all seriousness, the Qur’an says that ants and birds have human intelligence and communicate with one another in languages with grammar and syntax, languages that Solomon the Wise could understand (Qur’ān 27.16). According to the Qur’an, King Solomon’s army was manned not only by human soldiers but also by birds and jinn (i.e., elemental spirits—Qur’ān 27.17). King Solomon found it amusing to hear an ant warning his peers to retreat to their anthills lest Solomon and his soldiers trample them to death (Qur’ān 27.18–19). When Solomon was inspecting the birds in his army, the hoopoe bird came and reported to His Majesty that he (the bird) had discovered a wealthy queen (the Queen of Sheba) worshipping the sun instead of Allah, whereupon Solomon instructed the hoopoe bird to carry a letter to her regarding “Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” (Qur’ān 27.20–28). Some Muslims take this passage literally, and others consider it a parable or allegory. This is no more arbitrary than efforts by Jews and Christians to interpret Song of Solomon as an allegory of the love of G-d for Israel or Christ for his Church.
ReplyDeleteThe Mormons likewise have their explanations for all the errors in the Book of Mormon. Despite the best efforts of the Fundamentalists to debunk Mormonism, many brilliant Mormon doctors, lawyers, engineers, and computer scientists are convinced that their apologists have routed the Fundamentalist anti-cult authors. These include the writings of the late Dr. Hugh Nibley of Brigham Young University and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.
Among other things, the Bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem, whereas the Book of Mormon says Jesus would be born “at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers” (Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10). Mormons reply that “Jerusalem” is a figure of speech for the land of Palestine, just as the city of Samaria in 1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:24 is a figure for the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Fundamentalists also criticize the Book of Mormon for saying in 2 Nephi 5:15 that precious metals were abundant in the Americas, and in the very next verse that they were scarce. To eliminate this error, some Mormon apologists on the Internet have argued that the “precious ores” of verse 15 were indeed abundant, but the “precious things” in the next verse that happened to be scarce were not metals. Or perhaps the precious metals were abundant in general, but buried too deep in the earth to be recovered with Nephi’s primitive mining technology.
In the Book of Mormon, we read that Nephi built a replica of Solomon’s Temple (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:16). The problem is that he did not have a big enough construction crew at his disposal, for the entire Nephite nation could have numbered no more than several dozen individuals, the children and grandchildren of his father Lehi. According to some Mormons on the Web, however, Nephi built his temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon” only to the extent of copying Solomon’s general floor plan. They claim the Nephite temple was actually much smaller and simpler than Solomon’s temple, and could have easily been built by a dozen men in a year’s time. Others have suggested that Nephi received considerable help from a prosperous tribe not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. After all, the Book of Mormon never explicitly says the Nephites were the only people in America at the time, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In addition, the Mormon scriptures disagree regarding polygamy. The Book of Mormon forbids it (Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:22–35), whereas Doctrine & Covenants 132 encourages it. In particular, the Book of Mormon says God condemned David and Solomon for their polygamy (Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:23–24, 33), whereas Doctrine & Covenants says David and Solomon had God’s blessing in the matter (Doctrine & Covenants 132:38–39). Perhaps God had good reasons for ordering polygamy in ancient Israel and forbidding it in ancient America (Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:30), in the same sense that a general may have good reasons for ordering his troops to shoot on one occasion and refrain from shooting on another. And perhaps Doctrine & Covenants 132 describes God’s permissive will for David and Solomon, whereas the Book of Mormon describes his perfect will in harmony with Deuteronomy 17:17. In other words, God grudgingly granted them extra wives, but their motives were tainted.
ReplyDeleteIf you grew up in the 1960s as I did, you probably remember the Addams Family. This was a television sitcom involving a spooky family with a penchant for swamps, graveyards, and explosives. Here Gomez Addams, the father of the family, had a wife named Morticia, a daughter named Wednesday, and a son named Pugsley. Interestingly, there were some discrepancies in the series. In one episode, Pugsley was unable to count. In another, Gomez said his son had mastered calculus on his first day. Now the commonsense interpretation of this evidence is that the scriptwriters were merely sloppy ,and nobody cared because this was all meant as good clean fun anyway. An Addams Family fundamentalist, on the other hand, would have a lot of fun harmonizing the two accounts as follows.
Now astrologers claim that things go haywire when Mercury goes retrograde. Furthermore, among other things, Mercury is said to rule elementary education, of which arithmetic is a part. Now it stands to reason that a macabre family like the Addamses would be more susceptible than average to astrological influences. Even if Pugsley most of the time was a genius who had invented lethal ray guns and mastered calculus, perhaps his astounding mental gifts evaporated temporarily whenever Mercury went retrograde. Furthermore, the mere silence of the series hardly tells against the retrograde Mercury hypothesis; after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, the inerrancy of the Addam’s Family series has been vindicated and its detractors routed.
This is the reductio ad absurdum of the Rube Goldberg apologetics of the fundamentalists. They are clearly guilty of a double standard, applying a lenient standard to the Bible and a strict standard to all other literature. Now let’s be consistent! If the Qur’an and Book of Mormon contain demonstrable errors, then so do the Gospels. Conversely, if the Gospels contain no errors, then it is almost impossible to prove the existence of errors in any book ever written.
Hello Joe,
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of quick questions.
Do you have any religious leanings now? Are you an atheist or perhaps an agnostic?
I just want to see where you're coming from.
Hello Joe,
ReplyDeleteAgain I would ask, are you strictly an atheist? Or do you claim to be religious in any way? I’d like to know where you stand on that because your answer would affect my response.
First, I think that your premise can be summarized in this way: I see you saying, “You ‘fundamentalists’ cannot criticize any other religion’s holy writings since you would have to apply the same set of standards to your own Bible. And since the Bible is also faulty, then your Bible suffers from the same ‘problems’ as anyone else’s divine writings. Thus, you guys are using a double standard.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is basically what I believe you’re saying.
Ok Joe, if you’re an atheist, then I can see why you think the way you do. I can see why you are against the Bible. But Christians see God’s “fingerprints” all over the pages of the Christian Scriptures. First of all, the manuscript evidence, especially of the New Testament, is overwhelming. We have far, far more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other ancient writings (even those whose authenticity are not even questioned). Archaeology has also been providing proof of the veracity of the Scriptures. And an abundance of fulfilled prophecy tells us that the Bible is a supernatural book, many prophecies given hundreds of years before their eventual fulfillment. No other book can provide such accuracy with its prophecies; in fact, we don’t know of ANY others who even try.
Furthermore, an honest look at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ should put to rest any doubts one may have toward Christianity. See this article:
http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/08/evidence-for-resurrection.html
Also, Christianity is the “religion” (it is actually a relationship with God) which has most positively and drastically changed lives in every generation since its birth.
We believe that Christianity contains the very best answers to life’s big questions, like “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “What should my values be?” “What is my destiny?”
But if you are indeed part of a religious body, then I would ask, how can you see the Bible in such a negative light? Why does your church even bother using it at all if you have such a low view of it?
Joe, I am certainly not an expert in the Scriptures, but I (like many others) believe that your “contradictions” can indeed by answered, if CONTEXT is observed. First, immediate context (i.e., read the verses just above and below the “contradiction” in question). Then, consider the overall context of that same topic in other areas of Scripture in which it is dealt. And of course, we use basic hermeneutical principles like grammar, culture, history, etc. Sometimes the Bible uses symbolism and sometimes the Bible is to be taken literally. Again, it depends on context. We believe that the Bible (as multi-faceted as it is) is consistent with itself.
The “Outsider Test for Faith” that you mentioned points strongly to people’s bias when choosing a faith or world view, but we can say the same for atheists. They too, have an inherent bias in their decisions, as well, so this doesn’t really prove anything.